Re: [dnsext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-04.txt

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 03:28:14PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> 
> REMOVE:
> 
>    Because this document establishes the implementation status of every
>    algorithm, it should be listed as a reference for the entire
>    registry.
> 
> ADD:
> 
>    Because this document establishes the implementation status of every
>    algorithm listed in this registry at the time of writing, it should be
>    listed as the reference for all those algorithms. Future entries to
>    this registry should include an implementation status with corresponding
>    pertinent registries.

Thanks.  This does suggest an ambiguity, but probably not the one you
read (which does mean there's a problem).  What we envisioned was a
reference on the registry itself (and not on the entries) pointing to
this document.  The individual entries should doubtless still have
entries to the documents that specify the algorithm.  (This change to
the way it was stated since the previous draft was an attempt to deal
with a comment from the IESG.)

What about "Because this document establishes the implementation
status of every algorithm, it should be listed as a reference for the
registry itself (leaving in place the individual entries for the
algorithms referring to the documents that specify them)." ?

Note that the last part of your "ADD" is explicitly disallowed.  Any
future entry is either Optional (in which case no new entry is
needed), or else this entire document needs to be made obsolete and
replaced.  

Best,

A (as shepherd -- I failed to mention that last time.  Sorry.)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]